Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-blog

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tri-blog

Extremely non-notable content. NO relevant google hits [1]. Delete, neologism/blogspam. Not even worth merging into List of blogcruft Timecop 03:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. Incognito 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — it's not even a neologism. It's a protologism (or should I say, proctologism?) --Hosterweis 03:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Seems like a made-up term to me... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Tri-Delete - one liner advertising -- Femmina 06:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - No notability whatsoever. Cptchipjew 07:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 08:00Z
• Delete per nom. Proto t c 12:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete New internet lingo? Never heard of it. --Depakote 15:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. nn Eusebeus 22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - ZERO google hits pertaining to "tri-blogging." (see here) -- 66.142.85.214 01:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 07:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. Cptchipjew 08:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.